Allahabad High Court
Obeetee Pvt Ltd vs Chief Controlling Revenue ... on 2 August, 2010
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17588 of 2009 Petitioner :- Obeetee Pvt Ltd Respondent :- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Rai,Vishnu Kr. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17589 of 2009 Petitioner :- Obeetee Pvt Ltd Respondent :- Chief Controlling Revenue Authority/Commissioner And Others Petitioner Counsel :- A.K. Rai,Vishnu Kr. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
In respect of two sale deeds both dated 22.2.2001 references under Section 47-A(3) of the Indian Stamp Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") were made on 26.3.2002 for determination of market value and the deficiency in stamp duty. Accordingly, two Stamp Cases No.20 of 2002 and 19 of 2002 State Vs. Obeetee (P) Limited came to be registered. The Collector vide two separate but identical orders dated dated 30.9.2002 determined the market value of the land by applying circle rate prescribed for residential land. The said orders of the Collector have been affirmed in appeals which have been decided by a common order dated 26.10.2009.
The above orders determining market value and deficiency in stamp duty along with appellate orders are under challenge in the present writ petitions.
I have heard Sri R.N.Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.K.Rai for the petitioner and Sri Nimai Das, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
The parties agree for final disposal of the writ petitions at the admission stage.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the land transferred was agricultural land at the relevant time. It was declared to be 2 non-agricultural under Section 143 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (hereinafter referred to as the "UPZA & LR Act") subsequently on 23.7.2001. The authorities below illegally applied the circle rate prescribed for residential land in determining the market value. It has further been contended that the potential use cannot be taken into consideration while determining the market value. A further argument has been made that the circle rates as notified by the Collector are merely guidelines and cannot be followed in determining the market value once the sale deed has been registered.
Learned Standing Counsel in reply to the above arguments has submitted that from the perusal of the sale deed itself it is clear that the lands in dispute are situate just adjacent to the factory of the petitioner and, as such, are within the industrial area suitable for commercial use.
Undisputedly, the two pieces of land transferred under the aforesaid sale deeds were recorded as agricultural land in the revenue records. They were declared to be non-agricultural in nature much later to the execution of the sale deed.
In Aniruddha Kumar and Ashwini Kumar Vs. Chief Controlling Revenue Authority U.P. Allahabad and others 2000(3) AWC 2587 this Court has clearly laid down that where in respect of agricultural land there is no declaration under Section 143 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act its nature would not change and its market value for the purposes of payment of stamp duty would be determined on the basis of the agricultural character of the land and not on the basis of future potentiality.
A similar view has recently been expressed by this Court in 2008(8) ADJ 461 Ram Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. and others.
In catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the market value of the land cannot be determined with reference to its future or intended use to which the land is likely to be put by the purchaser.
In Naushad Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (2) ADJ 364 and Smt. Sushila Verma Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (1) ADJ 245 this Court ruled that 3 where land is recorded as agricultural land it cannot be valued as residential or abadi land merely because a residential colony is proposed to be developed on it or in the area.
Even the Supreme Court in Prakashwati Vs. CCRA and others 1996 AWC 1331 held that situation of a property in a area close to a decent colony would not make it of residential use and the market value has to be determined on the basis of constructive material produced before the authorities.
A similar view has been expressed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (8) ADJ 748 by holding that the situation of land in a semi-urban area would not make it an 'abadi' land.
Thus, the authorities below erred in treating the land in question to be non-agricultural in nature and taking into account the future use of the land while determining its market value.
Apart from the above, in the case of Ram Khilawan Vs. State of U.P. and others 2005 (2) AWC 1987 it has been laid down that the circle rates prescribed by the Collector under the Indian Stamp Act are only limited for the payment of stamp duty till the time of registration of the sale deed. However, if after registration the matter is referred, the market value is to be determined according to general principles as are applicable for determining market value/compensation under the Land Acquisition Act or by following the exemplars. In such a situation the nature of the land looses all significance and the exemplar sale deeds becomes the most relevant criteria of determining the market value.
In the instant case neither the general principles have been followed nor exemplars have been relied upon for the purpose of determining the market value of the land in question.
In view of above, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law and are liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.9.2002 passed by the Collector, Sant Ravidasnagar Bhadohi and 4 26.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur are quashed and the matters are remanded to the Collector, respondent no.3 for redetermining the market value in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.
Order Date :- 2.8.2010 BK